Christianity was only the religion of Christ for a few fleeting generations after he was crucified, tops.
In a sense, it was never a “religion” of Christ. Jesus tried to establish a communal movement, not a religion. Once it adopted the dogmas and hierarchies of a religion, virtually every semblance of the Christ movement was gone, and all hell broke lose.
Re: Violence
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:42 am
by ousdahl
TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 8:36 am
sadly funny that the evangelical christians are some of the most ardent q-anon followers
Sadly funny, but not that surprising.
After all, religions are basically conspiracies that achieved some critical mass.
Re: Violence
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:51 am
by defixione
Thanks, Saul.
Re: Violence
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2021 11:06 am
by PhDhawk
ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:41 am
Christianity was only the religion of Christ for a few fleeting generations after he was crucified, tops.
In a sense, it was never a “religion” of Christ. Jesus tried to establish a communal movement, not a religion. Once it adopted the dogmas and hierarchies of a religion, virtually every semblance of the Christ movement was gone, and all hell broke lose.
So when Jesus told Peter he was the rock on which he would build his church, he meant more of like a community hall?
ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:41 am
Christianity was only the religion of Christ for a few fleeting generations after he was crucified, tops.
In a sense, it was never a “religion” of Christ. Jesus tried to establish a communal movement, not a religion. Once it adopted the dogmas and hierarchies of a religion, virtually every semblance of the Christ movement was gone, and all hell broke lose.
So when Jesus told Peter he was the rock on which he would build his church, he meant more of like a community hall?
That piece of fiction was selected 300 years later
Re: Violence
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2021 11:21 am
by Deleted User 89
yet again, rich and powerful white men fucked things up
Re: Violence
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2021 11:28 am
by PhDhawk
TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 11:21 am
yet again, rich and powerful white men fucked things up
In 300 AD there's a good chance they weren't white. Or if they were, they were some swarthy Meditteraneans.
ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:41 am
Christianity was only the religion of Christ for a few fleeting generations after he was crucified, tops.
In a sense, it was never a “religion” of Christ. Jesus tried to establish a communal movement, not a religion. Once it adopted the dogmas and hierarchies of a religion, virtually every semblance of the Christ movement was gone, and all hell broke lose.
So when Jesus told Peter he was the rock on which he would build his church, he meant more of like a community hall?
That piece of fiction was selected 300 years later
I honestly don’t go so far as to call it “fiction,” but yeah, it’s important to identify the gospels for what they are: translations of translations of nomadic oral traditions, written generations after the fact.
There were and maybe still are hundreds of gospels; of these accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus. But! hundreds of years after the fact, a group of church leaders (now in lock step with the Roman Empire, rather than at odds) got together and said, “yeah there’s hundreds of accounts of this cat, but from now on we’re only gonna accept these four. All others shall be destroyed, and studying or even mentioning them shall be considered heresy, punishable by death.”
One can’t help but wonder how they came to that conclusion, that only four gospels shall be allowed. But I’ll go out on a limb and posit they picked the four that best lent themselves to turning a communal movement into a hierarchical power structure.
PhDhawk wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 11:06 am
So when Jesus told Peter he was the rock on which he would build his church, he meant more of like a community hall?
That piece of fiction was selected 300 years later
I honestly don’t go so far as to call it “fiction,” but yeah, it’s important to identify the gospels for what they are: translations of translations of nomadic oral traditions, written generations after the fact.
There were and maybe still are hundreds of gospels; of these accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus. But! hundreds of years after the fact, a group of church leaders (now in lock step with the Roman Empire, rather than at odds) got together and said, “yeah there’s hundreds of accounts of this cat, but from now on we’re only gonna accept these four. All others shall be destroyed, and studying or even mentioning them shall be considered heresy, punishable by death.”
One can’t help but wonder how they came to that conclusion, that only four gospels shall be allowed. But I’ll go out on a limb and posit they picked the four that best lent themselves to turning a communal movement into a hierarchical power structure.
Nah, brah, it's because the other hundred just said the same thing!
In 300 AD there's a good chance they weren't white. Or if they were, they were some swarthy Meditteraneans.
you’re correct, but i was more referencing what the church/es did and have done to bastardize jesus’ original teachings and supposed intent
You mean to suggest Jesus didn’t have blonde hair and blue eyes?!?!
Forget that. Does he have any information on a housing and overall economic crisis coming this Spring?
Asking for a fiend.
Re: Violence
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2021 12:04 pm
by Mjl
TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 8:36 am
sadly funny that the evangelical christians are some of the most ardent q-anon followers
It makes sense though, right? Evangelicals have a tendency to believe "there are no coincidences." That mindset makes you succeptible to conspiracies, especially with the Q cult way.
It's actually kind of logical, just with a false premise.
You see them use the word "proof" a lot the way Lobster does, in ways where most of us would realize what is being said is not proof at all. The thing is, adductive logic (piecing random shit together) can be used to prove something if the premise that "there are no coincidences" is true.
TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 8:36 am
sadly funny that the evangelical christians are some of the most ardent q-anon followers
It makes sense though, right? Evangelicals have a tendency to believe "there are no coincidences." That mindset makes you succeptible to conspiracies, especially with the Q cult way.
It's actually kind of logical, just with a false premise.
You see them use the word "proof" a lot the way Lobster does, in ways where most of us would realize what is being said is not proof at all. The thing is, adductive logic (piecing random shit together) can be used to prove something if the premise that "there are no coincidences" is true.
very well said
Re: Violence
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2021 12:10 pm
by Walrus
Re: Violence
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2021 2:35 pm
by ProudBoy
I heard that bitch pelosi, along with schumer had meetings where both BLM and antifa representatives were present, and where they specifically plotted events to make Trump look bad.
